Setting up a Studio with Power iMac

[shortyc]

I have the new Power Imac and plan on setting up a decent studio.

So far, I have come closer to deciding on....

MOTU 828
HAFLER M5'S (OR TANNOY PROTO-J'S)
HAFLER AMP

BEHRINGER B-1 (OR MXL 1006) MIC

DIGITAL PERFORMER 3.0 (if i can bootleg that anytime soon)

WHATEVER MAC RECORDING SOFTWARE I CAN GET MY HANDS ON! (or if you know about VIRTUAL PC let me know...I was thinking about getting this to run PC recording applications, etc.)

A SMALL MIXER LIKE A MACKIE WHEN I CAN AFFORD IT


Who else has a Power Imac set up for their home recording? What have you done, and if you have any input, please feel free!

[elevate]

Wouldn't Power iMac be an oxymoron?

I think the 828 comes with some software, so you may be able to get by with it. A word of caution though, there seems to be concensus that MOTU tech support is almost non-existant.

Another thing is that the Proto-J's are not shielded which will make your monitor display pretty rainbows (not a good thing) if they're too close.

If you don't need a bunch of inputs, you may want to check out that new Mbox from Digidesign.

[SPINSTERWUN]

Originally posted by elevate
Wouldn't Power iMac be an oxymoron?....

[shortyc]

over my head.

well, as for the Mbox vs. MOTU. I hear that USB Audio Interfaces "suk", so where do I go from here?

Did I just make the totally wrong decision by not getting something with PCI slots?

(there's always the external PCI slots for around $1000)

[MrBlackthorne]

Yo Shorty,

The new iMac kicks ass, that's the perfect studio machine. I was looking into it myself, but I'm going to be going with a dual-G4 1GHz instead, because I crave power.

As for software - CUBASE. Hands down. I've had a lot of experience with the different Mac solutions, and there's nothing better for Mac than Cubase as far as entry-level audio mixing. You could go with a ProTools setup, but it's more complicated and more $$.

I wouldn't say USB audio sucks. I have a Tascam US-428 on my G3 400 MHz, and it's reliable and sounds great. I have a pair of Tannoy Reveal Actives that plug right into the outputs on the board, and I haven't heard a better home solution. VERY low noise and crystal clear sound.

I also have an MAudio Quattro (USB) that I run on my G3 233 MHz. It sounds great as well, just not a full-featured as the 428.

If you want to do more than 4 simultaneous channels, I'd go with Firewire. There's no reason that have PCI slots in this day-n-age, unless you're going for a high-end audio recording solution. Firewire gives you the added bandwidth to record LOTS of simultaneous tracks, if your rig supports it. USB can only do 4 channels max.

Email me personally if you have questions about Mac-specific audio software or harware. I've had enough "Learning Experiences" that I could probably help you out.

Peace.

Rick
rickchapman@mac.com

[MrBlackthorne]

One more thing... The new iMac has a flatpanel LCD built in, so you shouldn't have problems from non-shielded monitors, like the J's. But who knows what the magnetic field will do to the rest of the hardware...

Rick

[elevate]

why oxymoron?

Because the words "power" and "imac" don't belong together.

What are your needs? How many tracks do you anticipate recording at once?...and what would they be (mic, synth, etc...)? If you plan on recording six things at once, then clearly the Mbox will not suffice and you'll need to look elsewhere. If you plan on only recording one thing at once, then the 828 is overkill...unless you plan on doing more in the future.

[MrBlackthorne]

Originally posted by elevate

Because the words "power" and "imac" don't belong together.

Elevate,

This was probably true when the first iMac was released, but this new iMac's got ballz. No consumer level PC touches it when you compare features and performance vs. price.

Just a little FYI.

Rick

[shortyc]

I'll definitely be in touch with you. I read that the quattro had alot of compliations.

Either way, I think I may go with the 828 'cause it sounds like firewire is the way to go. maybe if i purchase it through a reliable company I will be fine if there are problems.

And, I am so curious about the Hafler M5's, I think I will get those, they are magnetically shielded anyhow.


After that, I will add on to my collection through out the year.


Though, as fast as things come out, my decision may change!

if you have IM, i am shorty_c@hotmail.com or "therealshortyc" for yahoo.

[elevate]

this new iMac's got ballz. No consumer level PC touches it when you compare features and performance vs. price

I guess you could think that, but that doesn't mean you're right. $1,900 gets you an 800Mhz G4, 256MB SDRAM, and a 60GB hard drive. That's not much computer for your money. You could probably build a dual Athlon rig for that kinda loot.

Apple [finally] has a decent OS, and their hardware does well on Mhz to Mhz comparisons, but Apple simply can't compete on a price vs. performance basis.

[MrBlackthorne]

Well, I suppose if you're technically estute enough to build your own system, then you could probably build a pretty decent PC for that kind of money. But most people are not like you and I, and wouldn't be interested in building their own system when they can pay a little more to get one that is already assembled with a warranty.

So do the math and shop around at Dell, Gateway, or the others. You'll be hard pressed to find a PC that comes with a HIGH QUALITY flatpanel display (this is the most beautiful LCD I've ever seen), and DVD Burner (burns CD's, and DVD's) for $1900. Not to mention that on the CISC-based X86 processor line, you're talking at least 1.5 GHz if not more to compete with the 800 MHz G4, especially in media-intensive applications (like audio) where the Mac truly shines. Compile the fact that (arguably) the best OS available ships with it, and the iMac doesn't look too bad.

Hey, I'm not here to start a Mac/PC war. I'm just sticking up for Shorty, and every other Mac person that gets chastised for their platform preference. I have not once ever criticized a PC user for their platform choice. I'm an IT Consultant with a Computer Science degree, so I know my stuff. Certainly, a PC has its place in the workforce and home studio, and I'm not denying that.

Whenever I tell a PC user that I prefer Macs, 95% of the time they roll their eyes and make some type of "Macs Suck" comment. Well, guess what? Now the PC mags are raving about Apple's new OS and iMac. When the cream of the form of the Windows/PC world are raving about Apple, I think it's time to stop this foolish anti-Mac criticsm... ESPECIALLY on a BBS dedicated to the creative and inspired.

Peace,

Rick

[elevate]

I'm not here to start a platform war either, I'm just trying to cut through the BS.

So do the math and shop around at Dell, Gateway, or the others. You'll be hard pressed to find a PC that comes with a HIGH QUALITY flatpanel display (this is the most beautiful LCD I've ever seen), and DVD Burner (burns CD's, and DVD's) for $1900.

You obviously haven't checked prices at Gateway or Dell. You also may not be aware that the folks that manufacture Apple's screens, also make them for other people.

Not to mention that on the CISC-based X86 processor line, you're talking at least 1.5 GHz if not more to compete with the 800 MHz G4

I'm no processor architecture wiz, but I think you'd be surprised how much like CISC the PPC has become. Besides, the whole RISC vs. CISC debate is largely inconsequential at this point. The reason that the PPC used to perform so well at its given clock speed is also the main reason it's been so hard to increase its speed. This is why the new G4 has more and longer pipelines, decreasing the chip's efficiency. An 800Mhz G4 is probably the equivelant of a 1Ghz - 1.2Ghz Athlon (the old variety), while it would be about the same as an 800Mhz XP chip (if one existed). The P4 isn't as efficient as the Athlon, but Intel made design decisions that would allow them to quickly ramp up cpu speed.

Whenever I tell a PC user that I prefer Macs, 95% of the time they roll their eyes and make some type of "Macs Suck" comment.

You won't hear that from me. What you need to understand is that when people say, "my new Mac is as fast as a 4Ghz P4,' it's just as bad and misguided.

*note - I'm not saying you would say that, but I have heard people say such things.

[shortyc]

I used to have a PC that was built for me, and it had so much problems I constantly had to call someone over to look at it.

(cause I'm not THAT computer savvy, period. mac or pc)

So, instead of buying a dell or whatever, I got a nice loan on an Apple. Simple as that.

The only thing now, is it's so hard to bootleg stuff, cause all my friends are major pc and they have ALOT of software I could be using right now.

(hoping i can get virtual PC for my imac)

I did find out that that new plug-in I think called "Alti-Verb", only works with the G4 processor chip. So, that's cool.

[elevate]

(hoping i can get virtual PC for my imac)

That's all well and good, but don't expect stellar performance. You take a pretty sizeable performance hit running x86 apps in emulation. I would guess doing audio work on an 800Mhz G4 through Virtual PC would be similar to doing it on a 400 PII...maybe slower if the app was coded for SSE or SSE2.

[eyeslikefire]

Originally posted by MrBlackthorne


Elevate,

This was probably true when the first iMac was released, but this new iMac's got ballz. No consumer level PC touches it when you compare features and performance vs. price.

Just a little FYI.

Rick

Thorn....
Be aware that in this BBS when you try to compare MACs and PCs, you WILL get a response from Elevate.

He knows his shit though.
(though I still prefer the macs)

.........\\|//..............
........///|\\\............
-oOO--(_)---OOo--
-------PEACE--------
><>eYEslIkEfIRE<><

[MrBlackthorne]

Originally posted by elevate

You obviously haven't checked prices at Gateway or Dell. You also may not be aware that the folks that manufacture Apple's screens, also make them for other people.

Actually, yes I have. I configured a system at Dell.com that would be relatively equivalent to the new iMac as far as features and performance are concerned. The price for a Dell Dimension 4400 with a 1.6 GHz P4 and all the other features of the iMac came to $1,917.00. But I configured it with a 40 gig HD instead of a 60, since they don't have 60 gig as a built to order option. You can tack on a few more $$ for that, but not much. All I was saying is that the new iMac is a good value, and my research only strengthens my belief in that. But don't take it from me - go to Dell and try it yourself.

Furthermore, I've looked at the LCD's at CompUSA and the like. I also use both an IBM and an NEC flatpanel at work. Regardless of who makes the Apple display, I haven't seen one as nice - especially one bundled with a PC. That's not to say that they don't exist - they're just not shipping with any other retail PC. We could nitpick about this forever, but what's the point?

I'm no processor architecture wiz, but I think you'd be surprised how much like CISC the PPC has become. Besides, the whole RISC vs. CISC debate is largely inconsequential at this point... etc...

From TechTV: "Today the performance gap is even wider, with Intel's Pentium 4 chip running at 2 GHz, compared with the Apple G4's 876 MHz. But the disparity in chip speed doesn't necessarily translate into better performance for Wintel machines. In fact, the latest Macs are faster than the higher-megahertz PCs when it comes to such tasks as compression and running multimedia software, due to Apple's chip architecture." This article states that the 867 MHz G4 outperformed the 2 GHz P4 in many media-instensive applications. This fact leads me to believe that I wasn't wrong in stating that an 800 MHz G4 can compete with a 1.5 GHz P4 or even the old Athlon. Certainly, there will be operations that the P4 is faster, but (like I said before) I'd say it's a pretty even comparison. The new XP Athlon is a different story, they did some interesting things to its architecture to get it to perform well, and it shows in its benchmarks. Kudos to AMD.

The two processor architectures remain quite different, even though Intel and AMD have been trying to incorporate RISC design conventions to their new processor lines. Apple was smart to jump on PowerPC and abandon the 680X0 line when they did. The 680X0 line still had potential, but they saw that the PowerPC was the way to go and got the transition over with a long time ago. Microsoft would have been smart to do the same, but they were too concerned with backwards-compatibilty. Remember: all those millions of CISC instructions still need to be embedded in the new X86 processors to ensure compatibility. This means that no matter how the architecture changes, the processor is still slowed down from its theoretical potential speed. And let's not talk about pipeline lengths. Sure, the original pipeline length of the G4 was only 4 stages, and the new G4e is 7 stages. The G5 is 10 stages. But the Pentium 4 is 20 stages - twice that of the G5. And it's only up from there.

I've had training on the X86 architecture and X86 assmebly language. I've also had processor design training in PowerPC and PowerPC assembly language. The differences are staggering, and I'd actually say that I prefer X86 assembly because it's much easier (because of its bloated instruction set). But there's no doubt that the PowerPC is still a better and more efficient architecture.

You won't hear that from me.

No, but you are the one that started this whole thing by insinuating that the new iMac is not a powerful system - which it is. It was a blatant stab at anyone who chooses to use a Mac, and was just as ill-intended. Then you continued to state that the new iMac is not a good value. Which, as my example shows, is also not true in the overall scope of things.

What you need to understand is that when people say, "my new Mac is as fast as a 4Ghz P4,' it's just as bad and misguided.

Surely you jest. I admit, the "95% of PC users" thing was a little bit of an overexaggeration, but I've read a lot of pro-Mac propaganda and have never heard any exaggeration so ludicrous. Anyway, if you've actually heard that, those people are dumb.

Hey, man, I'm not anti-PC. In fact, I'm writing this message on an IBM Thinkpad - and I like it! I just can't stand the way PC users like to pick fights with Mac users by making subtle comments like "Isn't that an oxymoron?" or right out saying they suck. The new iMac is a really fast, really good machine, especially for studio applications. And for what you get, it's very reasonably priced. Period. I'm not saying that PC's suck. I'm just sticking up for people that use Macs, that's all.

Rick

[MrBlackthorne]

Originally posted by elevate

That's all well and good, but don't expect stellar performance. You take a pretty sizeable performance hit running x86 apps in emulation. I would guess doing audio work on an 800Mhz G4 through Virtual PC would be similar to doing it on a 400 PII...maybe slower if the app was coded for SSE or SSE2.

I have to agree here. I wouldn't use VPC for audio editing. You'll get iffy performance, and there are plenty of Mac audio apps out there. Don't waste the money on VPC, put it towards something more useful.

The only thing I've ever used VPC for is compiling code for Windows, and I'm pretty sure you won't be doing that.

Rick

[MrBlackthorne]

Originally posted by eyeslikefire


Thorn....
Be aware that in this BBS when you try to compare MACs and PCs, you WILL get a response from Elevate.

He knows his shit though.
(though I still prefer the macs)

I've found that individuals that get offensive about people using Macs are just insecure about their platform choice. There are a few cool PC users that I know that won't personally buy a Mac, but who don't mind using them and will admit when an Apple product is cool. These people are few and far-between.

I get paid to program computers and I prefer Macs.

Rick

[The Garage]

whogivesashit?

p.s. i like coke better than pepsi.

[goon88]

Shorty:

PTFree will work with the 828 for tracking. The latency is high and you can only use 8 tracks, but what do you want for nothing, your money back? The latency is no big deal because you will not want to use the PTFree plugins anyway, and you can use the direct monitoring in the 828.

Then you can import the tracks into Audiodesk for mixing, and there you have as many tracks as your iMac can handle - probably dozens.

PTFree and Audiodesk are kind of limited in plugins, but with the 828 you can do outboard processsing.

And if you buy the 828 new, you get a discount on DP - I think it is only $300 then.

goon

[elevate]

The price for a Dell Dimension 4400 with a 1.6 GHz P4 and all the other features of the iMac came to $1,917.00.

I configured one for $1800 with a 2Ghz P4 and an 80GB drive.

From TechTV: "Today the performance gap is even wider, with Intel's Pentium 4 chip running at 2 GHz, compared with the Apple G4's 876 MHz. But the disparity in chip speed doesn't necessarily translate into better performance...

Wait, did they just say the performance gap is wider, yet that doesn't mean performance is that different? Yea, I've never been a big fan of TechTV. Do they have info on these benchmarks? How the machines were set up? What applications were run? Go here for some benchmarks. The setup info is not there, but it is linked to on a PC tech site. The most objective tests are the two ArsTestBench tests (int and float). These were developed by both Mac and PC (not necessarily Windows) users.

I realize this argument is somewhat futile. For Mac users, and a good sector of commonplace PC users, the new iMac is a nice package. For me, it conjures up feelings of ....meh. I build my computers, and I encourage others to do so because that is where you are going to get something truely deserving of the "Power" monicker and for less money.

BTW, I think Dell gets their LCD screens from the same people that make Apple's LCD's.

[shortyc]

whoopie!

[MrBlackthorne]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elevate

I configured one for $1800 with a 2Ghz P4 and an 80GB drive.
[QUOTE]

You're probably forgetting to add things like Firewire, video editing media software, DVD Burner, and a 15" flatpanel display. These are all standard (besides DVD burner) on even the cheapest iMac. I configured the system with as identical features as I could find.

As for TechTV, whatever. I don't care for their channel either. The fact of the matter is that the G4 does compete well with the P4 and the Athlon on a lot of tasks, because of its 128 bit vector processing. A floating point/integer calculation benchmark is not going to show that. Vector calculations are used to speed up things like media and audio - which is why the G4 is such a good audio machine. My sister has a 450 MHz G4 Cube that I've used for mixing before. No matter how many tracks and effects I threw at it, I couldn't get it to studder. (I'm sure I could have gotten it to choke if I used, say, the Waves C4 compressor 80 times, but that's not a real-world test.)

BTW, I think Dell gets their LCD screens from the same people that make Apple's LCD's.

I don't know, I've seen the LCD that comes with the Dell. Maybe it's just the Mac bigot in me being biased, but I don't think they look as nice. Just me, I guess.

I realize this argument is somewhat futile. For Mac users, and a good sector of commonplace PC users, the new iMac is a nice package. For me, it conjures up feelings of ....meh. I build my computers, and I encourage others to do so because that is where you are going to get something truely deserving of the "Power" monicker and for less money.

Yeah, I hear you. I've built a couple PC systems, there's really nothing to it. I just use PC's for number crunching and serving. I wouldn't put one in my studio. And as far a Windows goes - forget it. I'm Linux or FreeBSD all the way. You could say I'm pretty biased against Microsoft, especially after BeOS went under, no doubt because of Microsoft's dominance. If BeOS had become a dominant production OS, I probably would have considered a PC in my studio.

I've also built my own Mac. A G3/266. Pretty sweet system, and it runs nice considering I built it in an AT tower using used parts from the clone days. Actually, I built one of those for my friend, too.

Listen, I'm not going to debate that PC's suck. I don't think they suck. It just drives me crazy when PC users attack Mac users for their platform choice, for really no reason. It's tough for someone like me who is truly multi-platform. (I deal with mostly Solaris at work.)

Peace out.

Rick

[elevate]

Maybe it's just the Mac bigot in me being biased, but I don't think they look as nice. Just me, I guess.

Maybe . Could it be the gamma? Macs do have a higher gamma setting than Windows, well, or any other OS I've used. Makes colors look more "vibrant."

You could say I'm pretty biased against Microsoft, especially after BeOS went under

*sigh* I was a BeOS user as well. I place equal blame on MS and Apple. Both are the major players on their respective architectures and both took steps to push Be out. Though I think Apple took more proactive measures - they had more to lose. Another thing, Apple was considering using BeOS as the core of OSX, but I think Steve Jobs didn't go that route just to spite Gassee. If Apple had chosen Be as its core for X, X would have been out sooner, have a more responsive GUI, and already have a slew of apps. I was really pushing for BeOS.....oh well.

It just drives me crazy when PC users attack Mac users for their platform choice, for really no reason.

Did I attack anyone? I just pointed out the humor in "Power iMac."

[Downside Studio]

Just to do a little mac patriotic talk.

Do understand that most Mac-users HAVE previous PC experience. That's the main reason they are using Mac now.

Do understand that most PC-users HAVEN'T Mac experience. That's the main reason they are using PC now.

In other words...it's useless trying to convince somebody using a Mac, that PC is better. I'm not saying which platform is better. I believe both are good and up to date. You can choose between superfast of a little bit more superfast, turtcolor or nice mac-colors (G4)..etc.

I personally have had such bad experiences with PC and PC-software I would never return to it. I'd tried anything to any cost to get it to work and i just couldn't. I was using up more time inside my computer than working on it. That may be due to me, but if I buy a mixing-console and the faders don't work I return it. I'm not going to screw the whole thing apart to fix it. If it has a software bug I'm going to stalk the manufacturer for an update. If not I return the damn thing.

Converting to the Mac platform solved all my problems. it to has some major downsides but so does everything in life.